Re: 2024 Presidential Polling

1277
So, because a 3rd Party has never won, a 3rd Party candidate will never win? Bullshit - of course not if we *don't vote for them!*

Imagine for just a minute that if all the people who are undecided and all of the people who don't like either choice (or even a majority of them) *all* voted for Jill Stein. What would happen? At the very least it would throw a major monkey wrench into the Two Party, Oligarchy owned and operated System.

Now imagine, as I imagine, that we all just do the same thing we have been doing for decades (voting for the least vile candidate or the one who represents our Party) because we are convinced that since a 3rd party candidate has not won it will never happen/can't ever happen. What will the result be? Nothing will happen.....we'll get what we have always gotten in the last decades. We'll get screwed. Again. Why? Because we did the same stupid thing - we voted for what we judge to be the least vile candidate. Again. And Again. Convinced that not doing the same/expected thing is the wrong choice.

It's like watching a monkey with a peanut. Same stupid shit.

VooDoo
Last edited by VodoundaVinci on Wed Jun 19, 2024 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tyrants disarm the people they intend to oppress. Hope is not a Plan.

Dot 'em if ya got 'em!

Re: 2024 Presidential Polling

1279
In less than a month, the Republican Convention will be held on July 15-18 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a swing state. The Democratic Convention will be in August in Chicago, Illinois which is not a swing state. And after the dog days of summer 2024, there are just two months until the general election.

Donilon and Biden are pushing these issues - Jan. 6, political violence, democracy and Donald Trump's character. Trump is about as unpopular as Biden and Biden didn't get a big boost with Trump's conviction in NYC. The possibility of political violence is being talked about in both camps, like a conspiracy theory. Democracy is polled occasionally as an issue, but it's not one of the top three. The Biden campaign thinks that the economy, inflation and immigration are just Republican issues, but they rate the highest in most polls. Biden ignores voters issues at his peril.

Biden's four issues rile Democrats but it's the 45% of voters who are Independents that must be swayed by any issues. Biden's EO on the border he signed a few weeks ago, should keep the numbers of asylum seekers very low and he released another one helping undocumented spouses of US citizens. He patterned the second one after an EO that W issued helping the undocumented spouses of members of the US Armed Forces. The ACLU is suing him over the first EO, but the second one has gotten bipartisan support.
Last edited by highdesert on Wed Jun 19, 2024 7:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: 2024 Presidential Polling

1280
I don’t believe our democracy is going to disappear regardless who wins. I believe we will have a president that will work to limit rights depending on which one determines which rights. Democracy was supposed to disappear in trumps first term. It didn’t.
VodoundaVinci wrote: So, because a 3rd Party has never won, a 3rd Party candidate will never win? Bullshit - of course not if we *don't vote for them!*

Imagine for just a minute that if all the people who are undecided and all of the people who don't like either choice (or even a majority of them) *all* voted for Jill Stein. What would happen? At the very least it would throw a major monkey wrench into the Two Party, Oligarchy owned and operated System.

Now imagine, as I imagine, that we all just do the same thing we have been doing for decades (voting for the least vile candidate or the one who represents our Party) because we are convinced that since a 3rd party candidate has not won it will never happen/can't ever happen. What will the result be? Nothing will happen.....we'll get what we have always gotten in the last decades. We'll get screwed. Again. Why? Because we did the same stupid thing - we voted for what we judge to be the least vile candidate. Again. And Again. Convinced that not doing the same/expected thing is the wrong choice.

It's like watching a monkey with a peanut. Same stupid shit.

VooDoo
Yeah, not falling for it. The same idiotic threats election after election.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: 2024 Presidential Polling

1281
Embattled leaders on both sides of the Atlantic are resorting to slashing attacks against their opponents, telling voters in dystopian terms about how bad things could get if their challengers win. In France, President Emmanuel Macron has warned that far-right and far-left candidates would inflict “an impoverishment of the country.” Across the channel in Britain, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has mounted a nearly all-negative campaign against the ascendant Labour Party. The three leaders represent different ideologies, cultures and generations. But they have one thing in common: all three are unpopular. Their caustic campaigns match a political atmosphere defined by frustration and fear.

“When voters are grouchy and angry, they don’t want to hear about rainbows and sunshine,” said Ben Tulchin, a Democratic pollster who worked on Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaigns. “When voters become recalcitrant, unwilling to hear a positive story, you have to shift gears to do scorched earth.” By going negative, hoping to clarify the stakes of the election for voters, these leaders are also telegraphing a growing desperation. They have struggled to persuade voters with an affirmative case for their own ideas; now they are scrambling to break through before it’s too late.

In the United States and France, voters are disgusted enough with the political status quo that they’re more willing to support parties and politicians once deemed to be far outside the mainstream. In both countries, hard-right candidates are campaigning on near-apocalyptic rhetoric about immigration, security and national sovereignty, in many cases with draconian policies to match.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/2 ... s-00164106

In the UK, Rishi Sunak and his Conservative Party are 20 points behind the Labour Party, even though inflation just dropped to 2%. Sunak called for general elections on July 4th. In France the far right National Rally Party made big gains in elections for the EU parliament and Macron dissolved the French Parliament and called for general elections on June 30th. And in the US our regular cycle presidential election is November 5th.

Since neither Biden nor Trump have gained any traction in the polls, I expect both parties to go very negative. Biden's already vilifying Trump and Trump is vilifying Biden, I expect the mudslinging will only increase because of their desperation.

The Republican Convention is less than a month away and each party's nominee normally gets a bump in the polls after their convention, but will there be a bump and will the bump be temporary or permanent? Will the bump get the nominee beyond the margin of error in the polls?

Recent state polls showed that Trump has made gains in MN, NM and VA, they aren't as Democratic as once thought. Trump is leading in the polls in NV, AZ, GA and NC but he still needs one more state to put him over the top, one of the rust belt states of WI, MI or PA or maybe NH.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: 2024 Presidential Polling

1283
Yup the Fox News poll shows Biden at 50% and Trump at 48%, still within the margin of error of most polls. Earlier Morning Consult had Biden at 44% and Trump at 43%: NPR/PBS/Marist College had them tied at 49%: Reuters/Ipsos had Trump at 41% and Biden at 39%: and Daily Kos/Coviqs had them tied at 45%. It's a dead heat, if this keeps going it will be a nail biter come election night and into December.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: 2024 Presidential Polling

1285
Yes Fox News decision desk in 2020 was the first network to declare that Biden would win Arizona on election night. They stuck their necks out and they were absolutely right, none of the TV networks or the wire services declared for days or weeks after the election. The head of the Fox News decision desk paid a price though for being right, it put the decision desk at odds with their news room's pro Trump messaging.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: 2024 Presidential Polling

1286
New The Hill/Emerson College polling of the battleground/swing states:

Arizona - Trump 47% and Biden 43%
Georgia - Trump 45% and Biden 41%
Michigan - Trump 46% and Biden 45%
Nevada - Trump 46% and Biden 43%
Pennsylvania - Trump 47% and Biden 45%
Wisconsin - Trump 47% and Biden 44%

In addition they polled Minnesota which isn't one of the swing states, it's considered to be safely in Biden's column. Trump and Biden are tied at 45% each. This is the second poll I've seen which shows Minnesota in play this election year.
The most important issue for each state remains the economy: 27% in Arizona note it as their top issue, 45% in Georgia, 41% in Michigan, 34% in Minnesota, 35% in Nevada, 44% in Pennsylvania, and 42% in Wisconsin. Immigration closely follows the economy as a top concern in Arizona, at 26%.
Voters were asked if Donald Trump’s criminal conviction of 34 felonies impacts their vote this November, or if it has no impact. A plurality in all states say it has no impact on their vote.

Voters were asked if Hunter Biden’s criminal conviction of three felonies impacts their vote for Biden this November, or if it has no impact. A majority of voters in each state said it has no impact on their vote.
https://emersoncollegepolling.com/june- ... ver-biden/
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: 2024 Presidential Polling

1288
The very worst thing Joe Biden could do if he hopes to defeat Donald Trump is forgive student loans for the millions. The second-worst thing is talk up the tax credit for electric vehicles his administration finalized earlier this year, the one that will make it more affordable for millions of people to afford something other than a gas guzzler. The third-worst thing he could do is fail to talk about his administration’s efforts to slow the crush of migrants crossing the southern border. If you spend any time in the discourse of Democratic Party politics, these findings may seem at minimum like bad political strategy, even morally repugnant. Why avoid talking about all the great things you have done for young people and the environment? And yet they are what is necessary for Biden to have the best chance of winning in November according to Blueprint, a new Democratic data and polling firm whose findings have upended much of the conventional political wisdom this election year. Among them: Biden doesn’t need a specific plan to win back parts of the Democratic coalition like young voters and voters of color who have defected, because their concerns are no different than other voters, namely inflation; that instead of talking up his efforts to combat climate change, he should talk about how under his administration the country has seen record energy production; that instead of talking about the vast new spending to rebuild the country’s infrastructure, the president should talk about how he is lowering the national debt; and that even Latino voters favor stricter immigration controls.

“There is a lot of polling out there, but what we felt was missing from all of it was polling that is just victory-minded,” says Evan Roth Smith, Blueprint’s lead pollster, and the founding partner of the political-consulting firm Slingshot Strategies. “The Democratic Party needs polling that just says, ‘We have to win this election, and so here is where the electorate is, here is what the Democratic Party has done and can credibly run on.’ Let’s see what works and just tell everybody what we find.” “One of the reasons why we suspect that the polling numbers are where they are is that voters don’t think Joe Biden and the Democratic Party are sufficiently focused on the things they’re most concerned about,” Roth Smith says. “And so our job is to highlight the things they are most concerned about and explain what the Biden administration has done.” The EV tax credit and college-debt relief are both losers, according to Blueprint’s data, because they are both coded as preoccupations of the elite; instead, what Biden should be focusing on is his efforts to bring down the cost of pharmaceuticals, take on big corporations, tax the rich, and lower prices in the face of rising inflation. Roth Smith believes Democrats talk too much about Trump’s odious character, his legal liabilities, and the threat he poses to democracy instead of his economic record that includes a massive tax cut for the rich, which Blueprint found to be staggeringly unpopular. These unorthodox findings have helped make Blueprint the buzzy polling outfit of 2024, its findings pinging around the internet and making their way into articles where reporters and pundits try to make sense of an election cycle that so far has avoided familiar narratives. Blueprint’s findings have regularly been written up in the Times and the Washington Post, chewed over on the A-block of primetime cable-news shows, and become the topic of the day on politics Twitter.

More significantly, the firm’s findings are making their way to the upper reaches of the Biden campaign and those of Democratic congressional-campaign offices, and they seem to be having a result: After a Blueprint poll found that voters were far more concerned about prices than they were about jobs, Biden began talking more about his administration’s efforts to curb inflation and less about their jobs record. After Blueprint found that even Latino voters favored strict enforcement at the border, the White House announced an executive order that did just that. But Blueprint has also become a target of attacks from the left wing of the Democratic Party, who accuse the group of trying to nudge Biden into the center. “We asked these swing voters, ‘Do you think Biden has done too much or too little?’ and the majority say that Biden has actually done too little,” said Danielle Deiseroth, the executive director of Data for Progress, a left-wing polling firm. “That goes against a lot of the punditry that says that somehow a radically left Biden economics agenda is turning people off of Biden.” A lot of the skepticism of Blueprint comes from the fact that its biggest donor is Reid Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn and someone who has given hundreds of millions of dollars to Democratic causes and who also believes that the party has drifted too far to the left. As Dmitri Melhorn, Hoffman’s top political adviser, puts it, the problem with much of the current polling apparatus was that it did not focus on the narrow slice of voters who could be persuaded — and that much of it had been captured by interest groups foisting their narrow agendas onto the party. “The polling industry, prior to Blueprint, at least, was dominated by people whose revenue streams came largely from small progressive issue-advocacy groups, who obviously have strong market preference for pollsters who would tell them that that kind of issue they are advocating for is exactly what would win the next election,” Melhorn tells me.
.
“We came to realize that a lot of decisions were being made in the center of the Democratic Party that we disagreed with, and we came to find out it was because of polling that was mismodeling the actual presidential election.” “What is driving overwhelmingly the Democratic messaging decisions is bad polling that has made us too soft on crime, too soft on the border, not strong enough on fossil fuels, too soft on campus protests,” he adds. “There’s just this huge ocean of winnable voters in the center that we’re not reaching because our polling is broken.” All polling involves choices about how questions are worded and in what order to present them, and outside pollsters who have worked with Blueprint said they found that the group is genuinely trying to get answers to questions, not to skew the results. But still, when a Blueprint poll found support for measures to harden the southern border, officials at Immigration Hub, which supports a more liberal approach to the issue, released a sharply worded response that said, “Blueprint fails to survey voters on the specific policies currently being considered by negotiators. The polling fails to communicate that families will be separated, asylum seekers denied protection, and detention will increase exponentially under the proposal,” and that pointed to other polling that showed a lack of support for Trump-era policies. “If you go against what the activists want it can be tough for you. The social-media reaction isn’t great, the incoming you get from activist groups is going to be unpleasant,” said Lakshya Jain, a data scientist at Split Ticket, a political-modeling organization. “I think someone like Evan may have a different view of some of these issues than what the public thinks, but he doesn’t let that get in the way of the data.”
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article ... trump.html

Do political parties allow ideology or objective data drive their issues? If it's ideology/beliefs, then be prepared to lose.

Prices are important to voters, we see inflated prices every day. Recently I went to a brew pub in another city, I've been there a number of times in the past, it's a small chain that specializes in Italian and pizza. I ordered a small vegetable pizza and a pint of their craft brew. Their pizza wasn't anything special though the brew was good, I paid $28.00 with tip and won't go back.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: 2024 Presidential Polling

1289
VodoundaVinci wrote: Wed Jun 19, 2024 4:29 pm So, because a 3rd Party has never won, a 3rd Party candidate will never win? Bullshit - of course not if we *don't vote for them!*

Imagine for just a minute that if all the people who are undecided and all of the people who don't like either choice (or even a majority of them) *all* voted for Jill Stein. What would happen? At the very least it would throw a major monkey wrench into the Two Party, Oligarchy owned and operated System.

Now imagine, as I imagine, that we all just do the same thing we have been doing for decades (voting for the least vile candidate or the one who represents our Party) because we are convinced that since a 3rd party candidate has not won it will never happen/can't ever happen. What will the result be? Nothing will happen.....we'll get what we have always gotten in the last decades. We'll get screwed. Again. Why? Because we did the same stupid thing - we voted for what we judge to be the least vile candidate. Again. And Again. Convinced that not doing the same/expected thing is the wrong choice.

It's like watching a monkey with a peanut. Same stupid shit.

VooDoo
Yeah, just waiting for the flying pink unicorn that shits silver bricks to make an appearance when a 3rd party candidate actually wins. To make your claim tells me you don't understand how the authors of the Constitution fucked up and MADE us have 2-party system.

If you don't learn from history....you know the rest!
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: 2024 Presidential Polling

1290
Reality:

A third party candidate has to do well enough during primaries to get more than 25% of the vote and do so in all states to have a significant chance during the general election.

A third party candidate has to do well enough during the primaries to attract the financial support of the oligarchs to be able to have a significant chance during the general election.

Should those two things happen that third party candidate would be just as beholden to the oligarchs just as today's two party candidates.
To be vintage it must be older than me!
The next gun I buy will be the next to last gun I ever buy. PROMISE!
jim

Re: 2024 Presidential Polling

1291
YankeeTarheel wrote: Sat Jun 22, 2024 5:13 pm Yeah, just waiting for the flying pink unicorn that shits silver bricks to make an appearance when a 3rd party candidate actually wins. To make your claim tells me you don't understand how the authors of the Constitution fucked up and MADE us have 2-party system.

If you don't learn from history....you know the rest!
I don't know. Enlighten me as to why it is impossible for a 3rd Party candidate to win. Thank You.

VooDoo
Tyrants disarm the people they intend to oppress. Hope is not a Plan.

Dot 'em if ya got 'em!

Re: 2024 Presidential Polling

1292
Our country was not founded as a two party system, that has simply been a development accepted by people and the parties. I’m very well aware of the founders original intention and it was not to create a system with just two parties that would become polarized as they have.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... on/604213/

Interestingly nothing prevents us from changing what we have now, certainly the constitution doesn’t. The founders saw parties in general as dangerous and our current dilemma is proof of their fear being based on a real threat. Here’s some thoughts by someone other than me, following quote:
Had the Framers accepted the inevitability of political parties, and understood the relationship between electoral rules and the number of parties, I believe they would have attempted to institutionalize multiparty democracy. Certainly, Madison would have. “Federalist No. 10,” with its praise of fluid and flexible coalitions, is a vision of multiparty democracy.
The good news is that nothing in the Constitution requires a two-party system, and nothing requires the country to hold simple plurality elections. The elections clause of the Constitution leaves states to decide their own rules, and reserves to Congress the power to intervene, a power that Congress has used over the years to enforce the very plurality-winner single-member districts that keep the two-party system in place and ensure that most elections are uncompetitive.

If the country wanted to, it could move to a system of proportional representation for the very next congressional election. All it would take is an act of Congress. States could also act on their own.

Multiparty democracy is not perfect. But it is far superior in supporting the diversity, bargaining, and compromise that the Framers, and especially Madison, designed America’s institutions around, and which they saw as essential to the fragile experiment of self-government.
To me and others, it is inevitable that we move toward a multiparty system and trying to ridicule us as not understanding our political system is ludicrous as well as ignorant of how our system developed and what contraints it actually has that prevents change. There is little that would prevent change except the unwillingness of those within the current two party power structure to relinquish the positions they have built in the past two centuries. The threat this election represents and the fear some here try to project is different than the threat I and others see. To me it’s much more dangerous to continue along the lesser evil path than to start resisting the binary choice we have been given for far too long. For a society to remain healthy it has to represent a multitude of views and that is not possible under the current two party system. We each have the right and obligation to do what we think is best for our country. That is a founding concept of our country.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: 2024 Presidential Polling

1293
Yes the founding fathers, the writers of the US Constitution didn't want political parties. They saw the Whigs and Tories in the UK battling it out. They were idealists, they thought by creating a republic that freed citizens from a corrupt monarchy, that men would agree on issues without political parties. They were idealists, but male colonists weren't.

We won't have a multiple party system in the US until minor parties start organizing at the grass roots level and win elections. Right now they just nominate someone for president, without their candidate having any chance of getting 270 electoral votes. The DNC is trying to block RFK, Jr from getting on state ballots, the RNC is probably doing the same as he threatens both candidates.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: 2024 Presidential Polling

1294
highdesert wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2024 8:16 am Yes the founding fathers, the writers of the US Constitution didn't want political parties. They saw the Whigs and Tories in the UK battling it out. They were idealists, they thought by creating a republic that freed citizens from a corrupt monarchy, that men would agree on issues without political parties. They were idealists, but male colonists weren't.

We won't have a multiple party system in the US until minor parties start organizing at the grass roots level and win elections. Right now they just nominate someone for president, without their candidate having any chance of getting 270 electoral votes. The DNC is trying to block RFK, Jr from getting on state ballots, the RNC is probably doing the same as he threatens both candidates.
Historically, the only way new parties have arisen is due to a gap.
First there were the Federalists (an informal party) and the Democrat-Republicans (shortened to Republicans) filled the gap. Under Jackson they morphed into the Democrats.
When the Federalists fell apart, the Whigs filled the gap (Wm Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor and their VPs)
When the Whigs fell apart (Lincoln was a Whig, originally) the next Republican Party filled THAT gap.
When neither party addressed the needs of the agrarian yeoman farmers, the Populist party arose...but failed and was absorbed by the Democrats.
When the Republican Party was on the brink of failure, due to Roosevelt's rage at Taft's policies, the Progress (Bull Moose) party arose, but it could not sustain and by 1916 it failed to replace the GOP--and collapsed.
Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrats failed to sustain past 1948.
Wallace's American Independent Party failed in 1972 when he was shot.

The Democratic Party is not likely to fail and come apart. The Republican Party HAS failed and has been replaced by the Trump Fascist Party (carrying the name "Republicans" for now). IF there is a gap, it is for a true Conservative party that embodies true Conservative values, not radical reactionary ones. But that would require the Republicans losing enough seats in both Houses and the White House and would take at least 1 more Presidential cycle, if not two. (The Republicans ran John Fremont in 1856).

When we don't learn from history's lessons and the WHY of those lessons then we definitely are doomed to re-make the same mistakes because we haven't learned from it. I'm not against a multi-party system and I think we as a nation would be better served if we recognized that a 3rd party that got at least, say, 20% of the popular vote (Just pulling a number out of my butt) would be entitled to a certain percentage of seats in the Congress. But that requires a Constitutional Amendment.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: 2024 Presidential Polling

1295
Joe Biden’s campaign planned to bury Donald Trump in an avalanche of cash. Instead, his allies are bracing for a slugfest without the benefit of a fatter wallet, as financial reports showed Trump outraising Biden in back-to-back months, hauling in huge sums after his 34 felony convictions and erasing Biden’s longstanding financial edge. Democrats in recent days largely downplayed Trump’s new financial lead in the same way Trump’s allies had when Biden was running ahead in the money race — saying the president would have enough money to compete. But privately, several Democratic strategists and donors were reeling. “There was the strategy of raising all this money on the front end so we could have this huge edge,” said one Biden bundler, granted anonymity to speak candidly. “The whole point of it was to come out with a sizable cash advantage and, you know, we’re now even and it’s June. … I have no other word for it other than ‘depression’ among Biden supporters.” Another major Biden bundler, also granted anonymity, called the development “disappointing, but not surprising.”

In the 2024 money race, not only was Trump out-raising Biden, but he also had more cash on hand. And Republican megadonors, too, rolled out enormous checks for Trump in recent days, including $50 million from longtime GOP donor Timothy Mellon to a pro-Trump super PAC. Several Biden donors insisted that they expected — and planned — for Trump to close the gap after he clinched the Republican nomination, comparing it to when Mitt Romney caught up to then-President Barack Obama in fundraising over the summer of 2012. Part of the disparity between the campaigns was that Biden was spending more heavily, building “out an unbelievable campaign structure in battleground states,” while “Trump has done nothing,” said Chip Forrester, co-chair of the Biden-Harris Southern finance committee. The campaign raised nearly $40 million last week, after a glitzy Los Angeles event and another in northern Virginia. Kessler said a fundraiser featuring First Lady Jill Biden in Philadelphia, scheduled for Monday, is already sold out and “we’re putting people on the waitlist.” “I don’t think either one of these candidates is going to lose because of a lack of resources,” said Howard Wolfson, a top political adviser to Bloomberg. “I think they’ll have fully-funded campaigns that will have more than ample resources to get their message out.”

But for the first time in the general election campaign, Biden is running behind in the money race. In the reports filed Thursday night, Trump and the Republican National Committee were sitting on $116.5 million in cash, while Biden and the Democratic National Committee have $91.6 million in the bank. Brian Hughes, a Trump campaign spokesperson, said, “From fundraising, polling, crowds at public events or enthusiasm across the board with America’s voters, there is more and more evidence that the momentum of President Trump coming out of a historic primary election season is growing as we move to November. The latest surge in fundraising and wiping out the campaign cash advantage in May reflects this.” Though Democrats argued Trump’s May haul featured a one-time-only event with his conviction that juiced small-dollar donors, that may not be the case with his sentencing scheduled for July, which could trigger another cascade of cash. Democrats also pointed to the upcoming June 27 presidential debate as a moment that could boost online donations and boost grassroots fundraising. But there is a bubbling frustration among some Democrats that donors who wrote big checks for Biden in 2020 are keeping their wallets closed now. At least two bundlers raised concerns about donors “who are sitting on the sidelines,” said one of those donors, who was granted anonymity to discuss the issue candidly.

“We need some more [donors] to come online, and I think that’ll happen,” said Bradley Beychok, co-founder of American Bridge, one of the major pro-Biden super PACs. “We need everyone on the field, engaged and doubling down from what they did in 2020. There are new people stepping up to the plate on their side, and we have some new people on our side.” On Trump’s grassroots donors, Biden communications director Michael Tyler in a statement to POLITICO attacked the former president for “suckering small-dollar donors into giving their hard-earned money to pay off the legal fees of a convicted felon — and not spending a dime talking to actual voters.” Still, even if the dollar amounts Trump raised are not spreading panic in Democratic circles, they are deeply troubled by the support those contributions represent. “What Democrats should worry about is that it’s even within distance — that the money is going on at Trump’s side at such a clip,” said Hank Sheinkopf, a longtime Democratic strategist based in New York. “You would think a guy who’s convicted of crimes would be nowhere, but he’s everywhere financially. And that is a real problem for Democrats.” He said, “The challenger shouldn’t even be close on the money side, especially a guy who’s convicted of felonies. How is this possible, is what the Democrats should be asking. … That’s what they should be worried about.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/2 ... s-00164566

Democrats forget that HRC had more money on hand in 2016 than Trump and she lost. It's not the money, it's the message and issues that sway voters.

Not the first time a member of the Mellon family has donated to Republicans, the late Richard Mellon Scaife another Mellon heir, used to donate a lot. The Mellons are a very wealthy Pittsburgh banking family.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: 2024 Presidential Polling

1296
YankeeTarheel wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2024 10:34 am I'm not against a multi-party system and I think we as a nation would be better served if we recognized that a 3rd party that got at least, say, 20% of the popular vote (Just pulling a number out of my butt) would be entitled to a certain percentage of seats in the Congress. But that requires a Constitutional Amendment.
And to once again allow reality in, see the Equal Rights Amendment. Introduced in Congress in 1923. Current status .... nada, zilch, neit, going nowhere.
To be vintage it must be older than me!
The next gun I buy will be the next to last gun I ever buy. PROMISE!
jim

Re: 2024 Presidential Polling

1297
highdesert wrote: Sun Jun 23, 2024 11:04 am
Democrats forget that HRC had more money on hand in 2016 than Trump and she lost. It's not the money, it's the message and issues that sway voters.

Not the first time a member of the Mellon family has donated to Republicans, the late Richard Mellon Scaife another Mellon heir, used to donate a lot. The Mellons are a very wealthy Pittsburgh banking family.
She had the money but was rejected in November of that year by millions of would be Democrat voters because she conspired with the DNC to suppress Bernie Sanders for the nomination. Sanders was the only candidate that polled consistently as beating Trump and he was dumped by the DNC because Clinton owned the DNC. Democrats, since they have learned nothing about what America really needs and wants, may suffer the same fate this Fall.

VooDoo
Tyrants disarm the people they intend to oppress. Hope is not a Plan.

Dot 'em if ya got 'em!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests